Why does my original vinyl of "Let It Bleed" sound better than my SACD?

I completely agree with you!

 

Care to explain?

 

Which "SA-CD"?
What SA-CD playback device are you using & what's your vinyl rig??

 

Possibly a different master was used other than was used on the LP?

 

I was always under the assumption Ludwig had the masters at hand, according to the linked article below and others -
http://www.smurphco.com/articles-par-ludwig.pdf

 

You're fooling yourself, you're delusional or you don't like accurate sound.



Just kidding!

I LOVE the SACD of Let It Bleed, and have no dog in this vinyl vs. digital hunt (even though I'm a shameless Artisan vinyl snob re Exile...). But it seems silly to me to get hung up on which truly superb version of LIB is more truly superb.

 

Can't say. It was my best guess. What do you think is the reason for the difference???

 

I thought that my CD reissue of Hot Rocks sounds better than the original London vinyl I have. I had the original CD release of this album, sold it shortly after getting the reissue. The original ABKCO CD release is poorly done IMO. There's noise on some tracks.

I have an original US pressing from '72 of Exile that plays dead quiet. My dad gave it to me. I also own the Virgin CD. I wouldn't say the difference is that big between the two. Maybe I just don't have a great rig, but I thought my Sony PS-X5 and the AT95E cart were pretty decent.



...As for the OP's comment, I would wonder if I could tell the difference if doing a blind test.

 

Possibly relevant anecdote, possibly not: Back in the early days of CD, a friend and I were browsing CD players, and the salescritter said to my friend, "Just think, you'll finally be able to hear the Stones in crystal clarity and understand every word Mick Jagger sings!"

And my friend replied, "My god, why would anyone ever want to do that?"

To me, the Stones sound a little murkier (in a good way) on LP.

 

Totally agree the Robert Ludwig Virgin Exile CD is excellent. There's just an extra touch of rock-and-roll magic about the vinyl experience of that album for me, the same way the OP feels about Let It Bleed.

 

But does that have to do with the sound quality, or because of the tactile characteristics of vinyl - with regard to the OP preference of the vinyl? Not trying to offend here because I have a turntable and like listening to records too, but I doubt the OP could tell a difference in a blind test.

As for Let It Bleed, all I have heard is the original ABKCO CD release and the 2002 reissue. I thought the 2002 reissue was done very well. Usually when I prefer vinyl it's because of mastering differences.

 

Well, I have to disagree, just because if the album is a favorite (and it is absolutely an all time favorite of mine) I want to dig down to the best sound I can get. Especially since though good, it really isn't one of the best recordings around. Some of the acoustic numbers are fantastic (especially Love In Vain), but Country Honk is kind of dicey with the anemic drum sound and trebly bias. The rockers are generally real good to great for SQ (Live With Me, Midnight Rambler, Monkey Man) but I've always thought Gimme Shelter (one of my all time favorite 'Stones tunes) could been better engineered.

So I want the best SQ I can find -- if I can afford it.

Having said that, I don't know all the formats and editions this album comes in, so I'm not calling myself an expert here. But I am satisfied with my (several) UK Decca copies and I even listen to the mono one (yes I know it's a fold-down) from time-to-time.

As for US Londons, I can easily see how people might hear better sound on one of the many, many remasters out there. I never thought the sound quality on any US London lp was great, but outside of the 'Stones and a handful of 60s lps by other groups, I'm no expert there either.

So I can easily believe someone found one that beats a SACD to their ears, or a regular redbook.

I thought the dual-layer 2002 (?) reissues were very nice, but I still prefer my UK Deccas for the 60s titles. They're all just more alive to my ears.

 

"But it seems silly to me to get hung up on which truly superb version of LIB is more truly superb."
Silly you; your on an audiophile site!

JJ

 

EQ moves. The original Decca LP is darker.

 

Mike Love.

 

Unbeatable indeed.

Beggars Banquet wasn't speed corrected. The original master tape was used, which plays at the correct speed, unlike the copy tapes used for most other releases.

It is almost definitely from the master. The stereo separation is superior to any other version.

That said, differences in EQ can go a long way, and there's some noise reduction on (at least) Gimme Shelter.

 

I guess it's the idea of what is the correct original sound, the vinyl which is probably what the Stones heard on the test pressings or the more 'accurate, corrected' modern interpretation of the master.

That's a tough call, even for the mastering engineer.

 

Well I guess we know why the difference. Like I said, I took a guess at it. Ok?

 

Well, I don't pretend to have the tech background of some of the folks here; that said, I was already aware of the info you mentioned above.

Is there a specific technical definition of "speed-corrected" that I'm missing here? I used the term to mean that "the speed was corrected" from previous releases. Where was I wrong?

 

I think this is a great thought that you've put out there.

Remember, these songs weren't recorded in the digital realm and they were meant to be heard in analog. When the digital thing happened, sure we all wanted to hear the Stones on CD, but so much of the warmth (dirt/grime/vibe/darkness/color/MAGIC) was removed in the name of better remastering. I get a little annoyed with the SACD version of Beggars Banquet and all the acoustic picking I can hear as loud as the damn music. It's a small thing to complain about, but I too think I really dig the vinyl of these albums over the digital too.

 

To me, "speed-corrected" implies that the source is at the wrong speed, but something was done in mastering to adjust it to what is believed to be the correct speed. For example, if a tuning fork was struck on the recording that was clearly at the wrong pitch.

In the case of Beggars Banquet, "plays at the correct speed" would be more appropriate, since nothing was done in mastering to change the speed.

The "warmth" was something added due to LP; it wasn't "removed" in digital mastering.

 

Assumed knowledge around here goes that the London era is best heard on UK vinyl, and Atlantic Rolling Stones Records era, starting with Sticky Fingers, is best on US vinyl. Could it be that "Let It Bleed" was mastered in Los Angeles and early US pressings are in the same league as the Atlantic Records era? I know that they were in LA finishing the LP in late 1969, the car horn and fiddle on "Country Honk" for example, were recorded there. There is a photo of Keith press checking the cover art poolside in Laurel Canyon...

 

I'm not sure about Let It Bleed, but that definitely seems possible.

Based on the revelation that some US copies of Beggars Banquet run at (or at least closer to) the correct speed, it would seem that at least some cuts were made from the master, while the UK just got a dub.

 

Thers nothing' infinite' about analogue
Its mechanical,it has limits.
You cant alter the alignment of mag particles on tape,it fixed just like the rest of the system.
There is no infinity and beyond.

 

They were 'meant to be heard in analog?' Lol, okay. Same as how The Beatles were meant to be heard in mono? With Hot Rocks, the CD sounds better than the LP in my system.